Letters Patent Appeal No. 372 of 2016. Case: Ashfaque Ahmad Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Letters Patent Appeal No. 372 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Purushottam Kumar Jha, Sandhya Mishra and Sweta Kumari, Advocates and For Respondents: Sushil Kr. Singh, AC to AAG |
| Judges | Hemant Gupta, Actg. C.J. and Sudhir Singh, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | February 02, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
Hemant Gupta, Actg. C.J.
-
The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeals is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 29th of October, 2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 19013 of 2014 whereby, writ of mandamus claimed by the appellant for appointment on the post of Headmaster remained unsuccessful.
-
Three advertisements were issued inviting applications for appointment to the post of Headmasters. The first advertisement is Advertisement No. 31 of 2005 in respect of 99 vacancies to be filled up from the general category candidates, Advertisement No. 32 of 2005 inviting applications for 48 vacancies and Advertisement No. 01 of 2007 inviting applications for 347 candidates from the general category candidates. The appellant has filed an application for appointment in respect of advertisement No. 1 of 2007 as a general category candidate. The result in pursuance of such advertisement was declared on 5th of April, 2014 (Annexure 6). The names of 347 candidates were recommended against the general category candidates, out of which up to 336 are of the general category candidates on merit, whereas candidates at merit position No. 337, 347 are the candidates against the category of physically handicapped in terms of principle of horizontal reservation. The name of one candidate was not recommended by the Commission in view of an interim order passed by this Court. In terms of the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short, "Commission"), the appointment letter was issued on 21st of October, 2014 (Annexure-10).
-
The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that against 348 vacancies advertised, only 344 general category candidates have been appointed. The names of 11 candidates appear as selected candidate in the earlier two advertisements. Therefore, 4+11=15 vacancies are still available, against which the candidates are required to be appointed on merit and, consequently, the appellant, who had secured 119 marks, would be a meritorious candidate entitled to be appointed against the result declared by the Commission.
-
On the other hand, the stand of the respondent Commission is that they have recommended names of selected candidates, who have applied in respect of advertisements published from time to time. The Commission is required to send names for the posts advertised to the State Government and that Commission had made recommendations in respect of the requisitions received.
-
The learned Single...
To continue reading
Request your trial